Smith v. Stepp et al

Filing 64

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting 56 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; denying 61 Motion (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 LAWRENCE CARLTON SMITH, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 13-3316 MEJ (pr) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF v. 12 L. STEPP, et al., 13 14 15 Defendants. / (Docket Nos. 56, 61) Plaintiff Lawrence Carlton Smith filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 16 § 1983. On July 2, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 17 47.) On July 25, 2014, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary 18 judgment. (Docket No. 54.) On August 5, 2014, defendants filed a motion for extension of 19 time to August 22, 2014, to file a reply. (Docket No. 56.) Defendants thereafter filed a reply 20 on August 21, 2014. (Docket No. 60.) Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting relief be 21 granted in his favor because the court did not grant defendants’ motion for an extension of 22 time and therefore the reply filed August 21, 2014, was untimely. (Docket No. 61.) 23 Defendants have filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for relief. (Docket No. 62.) 24 Plaintiff is correct that the court had not granted defendants an extension of time to 25 file a reply brief and therefore it was untimely when filed on August 21, 2014. However, the 26 late filing of a reply brief does not warrant relief. The court has discretion to grant an 27 extension for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). “Good cause” is not an especially 28 rigorous standard and extensions requested before the due date are routinely granted if sought 1 in good faith and do not prejudice the adversary. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 2 F.3d 1253, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2010). 3 Here, defendants filed a motion for an additional fourteen days to file a reply, prior to 4 the August 8, 2014 due date. Defendants indicated that they needed the time to speak with 5 the multiple defendants in the case. Thereafter, defendants filed a reply within the time 6 requested. In addition, the late filing of the reply did not cause any undue delay or prejudice. 7 For these reasons, defendants’ motion is GRANTED, and the reply filed August 21, 2014, is 8 deemed timely. Plaintiff’s motion for relief is DENIED. Defendants’ motion for summary 9 judgment is deemed submitted. This order terminates docket numbers 56 and 61. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 DATED: October 2, 2014 Maria-Elena James United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?